Dance recital lens question...

[Peter Camyre]

85mm f1.8 or 135mm f2.0 Which would be better on a 50D for a dance recital without flash of course? We usually end up sitting about 10 rows away from the stage. Last year I shot with a 40D & the 85mm 1.8 lens @1600 ISO and while the results were acceptable, but I'd like to improve this time. Any other suggestions would be appreciated.

[alan_potter]

What was it about the photographs from last year that made you unhappy?

regards,
/alan

[Peter Camyre]

At 1000 & 1250 ISO and the 85mm lens wide open at 1.8, I was only getting shutter speeds up to 1/500 and was causing motion blur. I will post a sample or two later. I shot in jpeg.

[alan_potter]

Wow... only 1/500s?I can't remember when - if ever - I got that kind of shutter speed!

For reference, pretty much all of the shots on http://www.stagepics.co.uk were taken with an f/4.0 lens, 1600 ISO and I don't think I often get above 1/250s. Normally it's below 1/100th!

I'd recommend RAW, though - much easier to ameliorate some of the effects of stage lighting in post processing if you shoot that way.

regards,
/alan

[Peter Camyre]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3324/3612539066_e92a22ab08_b.jpg
40D 85mm 1.8 lens AV @1.8 spot metering ISO 1250 1/400

[Peter Camyre]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3352/3611725231_df759e5bfe_b.jpg
1/400 iso 1250 av @ 1.8

[Peter Camyre]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3614/3612539418_8f255d38c9_b.jpg
85mm 1.8 ISO 1000 1/400 av@1.8

[Peter Camyre]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2454/3612539590_cde88cbd13_b.jpg

85mm 1.8 ISO1000 1/500 av @ 1.8

[Peter Camyre]

This was my very first dance recital with a DSLR. My question is... would I improve with a 135 f2 or would you have other suggestions. I'd like them sharper and more in focus.

[bobbyz]

Looks good light to me. Bump ISO to 1600 and stop down to f2.8.

[alan_potter]

They look good photographs to me, but I would suggest shooting RAW so that you can improve the colours in post processing.

Also, you might want to try shooting with -1/3 or -2/3EV exposure compensation; that way you'll be able to keep more of your highlights...

I had a very quick tweak at a couple of your photos before coming out to work this morning; I'll try to post them this evening.

regards,
/alan

[René Damkot]

sharper and more in focus.

I see no objectionable motion blur. Maybe you're referring to the shallow Depth of Field?
Stop down further.

[alan_potter]

I said I would try tweaking these; I'm not totally convinced by what I've done but it's a decent quick-n-dirty. Please let me know what you think.

1. for this one, I think I reduced exposure overall and took the white balance point from somewhere on her legs. I'm assuming these are white (as opposed to pink) tights.
372255

2. The best white point I could find here was on her fan. I'm not entirely comfortable with the skin tones...
372256

regards,
/alan

[alan_potter]

Another one...

3. I think a lot of the detail in the face of the front girl is lost... might have been recoverable with RAW. As before, I've cropped in as much as I could with a 3:2 ratio, but trying to focus on the area of interest - the dancers. The white point came from the shin of the front dancer.
372257

[alan_potter]

This one I tried something different - I got the white point from the waist band of one of the girls, then Noise Ninja-ed it, then USM 10/50/0, then USM again at 100/1/0.

372258

As I said, all of these were a bit quick and dirty. Also, I have just newly bought Pantone Huey and it has made my screen very blue... I'm still trying to get used to what I'm seeing.

If you like this, great. If you think the edits suck, no worries... in fact I'd be very happy to get feedback on them.

regards,
/alan

[Peter Camyre]

Alan, I like what you did to all four of them. Especially the last one. The girl farthest to the right is so much sharper. The white balance is much, much better. Next time I plan on shooting in RAW. I will also stop down my lens to about 2.0 or 2.8. Thanks for posting these, they look so much nicer. Peter

[alan_potter]

Thank you!

RAW can be a bit more effort, but for shots under variable lighting it can make a huge difference - I have been amazed by what can be recovered from a very iffy-looking RAW image.

Also, I would recommend shooting at -1/3 exposure correction - more if follow-spots are being used. It gives you a much better chance of recovering data from the highlight areas.

Please do post your pictures!

regards,
/alan

[Peter Camyre]

Thanks again Alan. I certainly plan to post some photos after the event on the 20th.

Peter

[Peter Camyre]

I'd like to thank all of those who offered suggestions last week to help me improve my "dance recital" photos. I was happy with the improvement over last year, thank you guys!!! Peter
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2484/3646698655_50c3048efc.jpg